The Advertising Standards Authority has been conducting an investigation into Friends of the Earth's wild stories about unconventional oil and gas in recent weeks. Today it was announced that our green friends have decided that a hasty retreat is in order. Rather than fighting the allegations against them they have decided to promise to stop telling said porkie pies rather than wait for an official ruling that they are, in fact, wholesale purveyors of baked meat products.

Reader Comments (40)

The person who represented them on the Today programme didn't sound very apologetic. It seems that if you think something like fracking is wrong, then claiming that it causes cancer and other problems is quite legitimate.

The public needs to understand that FoE should be no friends of theirs.

First things first.Welcome back your grace, a happy New year to you and yours from over the Tay.Basically all the propaganda from the Waurmunistas, is the original fake news.For instance on the biased BBC radio 4 last night was a classic piece from Roger 'Harridin' .Luckily my wife managed to put the wireless back together as it somehow collided with the wall when the item finished!

It'a amazing how the greenies can make something quite innocuous sound like an incarnation of the devil. First of all the actual fracking takes place around 8000 ft underground, up until then the well is drilled like any other well. Fracking takes a few hours and once completed the average well will continue to provide/oil and gas for ten years or more without pumping.

There are of course dangers in any enterprise, and so it is with fracking, there is a danger that if not handled correctly during extraction the a waste water spill could contaminate local water supplies. That is why the removal of the waste water is heavily regulated.

The finished well is about the same size as a one car garage and easily hidden from view.

For residents the downside is the extra traffic on their roads caused by lorries coming to collect the gas/oil, which is why communities living near to fracking sites are compensated by the fracking companies, I hope handsomely.

There has never been an adverse report about fracking in any consultation carried out by professional bodies, yet it's described as "controversial" which is akin to describing the holocaust as "controversial" because a few nutters question it.

The finished well is about the same size as a one car garage and easily hidden from view.

For residents the downside is the extra traffic on their roads caused by lorries coming to collect the gas/oil, which is why communities living near to fracking sites are compensated by the fracking companies, I hope handsomely.

Once construction finished extra traffic for collection shouldn't be an issue in UK as - unlike USA - most areas are within a short distance of the UK gas grid.

There has never been an adverse report about fracking in any consultation carried out by professional bodies, yet it's described as "controversial" which is akin to describing the holocaust as "controversial" because a few nutters question it.

Rose Dickinson, of Friends of the Earth, and Ken Cronin, who represents the UK onshore oil and gas industry.

The claims were stark: that chemicals used in fracking could cause cancer, or that drinking water might be contaminated. Now the advertising watchdog says Friends of the Earth has agreed to stop repeating what it called “misleading” claims about fracking.

Comment: FoE's Rose Dickinson refuses to admit they were lying and says they will continue to repeat the sames lies. ASA is toothless. Caudrilla should sue FoE for slander.

That is, I hope, humour. Fake news in the US goes back past the Spanish-American war. In that instance alone there is the well known instruction from Hearst to Remington (Frederick Remington) - "You furnish the pictures. I'll provide the war." Hearst effectively created the entire war as a favour to friends who wanted to control Cuba's sugar industry. Fake news should include the remarkable feat of Meriweather Lewis, who purportedly managed to shoot himself fatally twice with a single muzzle loading pistol during the Jefferson administration.

Heh, jf, you know, I wonder if he was delivered by a midwife who simply botched the paperwork. But also, in my belief, the requirement of 'natural born' excludes the son of a British Commonwealth citizen. I also believe that when Obama, in his peculiarly petty way, humiliated Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2012 over the authenticity of the produced certificate, that is when Trump decided to run for President. These little things can sometimes have such mighty consequences.======================

Has social media made today's fake new any different from what went on in the past? Although it comes from NPR, I found the following story persuasive (especially the live interview), especially since generators of fake new stories can make significant amounts of money from their activity.

FWIW, I find the idea that social media is bombarding us with dubious information very persuasive. It even happens here. For example, above Duster claims: Fake news in the US goes back past the Spanish-American war ... Hearst effectively created the entire war as a favour to friends who wanted to control Cuba's sugar industry. Fake news should include the remarkable feat of Meriweather Lewis, who purportedly managed to shoot himself fatally twice with a single muzzle loading pistol during the Jefferson administration."

Whatever the truth behind Meriweather Lewis's death (which has always been controversial), he man did suffer from serious bouts of depression, was in financial difficulties and lived for several hours with his wounds. There is nothing "remarkable" or implausible about the possibility that he committed suicide.

As for Hearst causing the Spanish-American War, Hearst's "yellow journalism" and ego are historical facts, but there is no evidence linking Hearst to the explosion of the battleship Maine (ignored as a cause by Duster). Hearst may have wished to aid his friends who wanted to control the sugar industry, but the declaration of war contained the Teller Amendment clarifying Congress's intent to go to war to achieve Cuban independence and not annexation to the US.

What does it mean to be a skeptic? If we are selectively skeptical, are we any better than the alarmists who claim our skepticism is funded by big oil?

But amidst the reports, the public comments by the parties involved and the social media chatter, there’s a risk that the facts become obscured.

So let me be clear. We told Friends of the Earth that based on the evidence we’d seen, claims it made in its anti-fracking leaflet or claims with the same meaning cannot be repeated, and asked for an assurance that they wouldn’t be. Friends of the Earth gave us an assurance to that effect. Unless the evidence changes, that means it mustn’t repeat in ads claims about the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices.

Friends of the Earth has said we “dropped the case”. That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s happened. We thoroughly investigated the complaints we received and closed the case on receipt of the above assurance. Because of that, we decided against publishing a formal ruling, but plainly that’s not the same thing as “dropping the case”. Crucially, the claims under the microscope mustn’t reappear in ads, unless the evidence changes. Dropped cases don’t have that outcome.

I had feared you lost to the exhaustion from the constant fight to stand up for rationality.Anthony was away for a year, Stephen McIntyre blogs so seldom these days, and you yourself were missing, hors de combat I feared. Welcome back, Your Grace. From those who have done so much, much more is expected. Where else are we to look for those of your character?The news in your post is welcome, though perhaps overstated. I'm more inclined to call it a 'rearranging of the deckchairs' rather than a retreat. In fact they're spinning it as if they'd been acquitted and exonerated.

This time the staged photo has near vertical solar panels instead of the caravan gas bottle.

Jan 7, 2017 at 4:41 PM | stewgreen

If you look at the shadow of the protestor, you will note the low angle of the sun. It is near dusk or dawn. The solar panels were set up, or adjusted just prior to the photo being taken. From 8am to 4pm, that solar panel is going to struggle to boil a kettle at this time of year.

FoE is in denial about the positive potential of fracking for the UK. Huge reserves of shale gas have recently been discovered, that could meet all current UK demand for at least 50 years. Like in the USA it could lower energy costs and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. FoE are leading the moves to prevent this happening. I have looked at their main webpage on fracking. The key points I make are:-

- The claims of dangers of fracking raise questions, that need to be answered before they can be considered credible.- The claim that fracking could affect house prices is totally unsupported.- The claim that shale gas will not significantly affect energy prices is based on out of date data. The British Geological Survey has shown that the potential of shale gas is huge. Friends of the Earth has played a major role in preventing that potential being realized.- FoE has consequently helped prevent shale gas from relieving the energy crisis brought upon by the Climate Change Act 2008.- Claims that pursuing shale gas in Britain will affect global emissions are pure fantasy. Also is a fantasy the belief that Britain is leading the way on emissions reductions. We ain't leading if collectively the world is not following. The evidence shows clearly shows this.

Kevin Marshall"Huge reserves of shale gas have recently been discovered, that could meet all current UK demand for at least 50 years".

Don't think so; the potential is there but reserves have still to be demonstrated. The wells being drilled are attempts to demonstrate them. The gas that may be there might be considered "speculative resources" in the current jargon. Don't spend your pension on them (yet).

Thank you for that clarification. The sooner we find out, the sooner decisions can be made, based on evidence, not bogus claims.

The UK Green Blob are leading on the bogus claims. If UK Taxpayers money has been diverted into promoting lies and bogus claims, from genuine "just causes", a dim view may be taken about the actions of some senior civil servants.

FoE, like the BBC, hides behind "the science" (or "the physics") to disguise a purely political agenda. Their view is characterised by this from the Independent of 01-05-2004: "Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week." That is CAGW by another name, whatever the denials.

What these people are peddling is their own hubris, not science. The messianic narcissism exhibited by FoE indicates they will not apologise for anything they do because they think the end justifies the means. An appearance of apology is merely that. The last time such overweening self belief was rife, millions died in the gulag for it. And of course the more extreme Greens want just that - an extinction event for us thicko plebs.